Suicidal White People Live in France Too.

March 8, 2012 A.D.

If France (a socialist country) needed to increase its birthrate, why didn't it pay the progeny of their ancestors (the original citizens who lived there before the influx of non-Caucasians) to have more children? Why didn't they pay the French to bear more of their own dear children rather than import the children of strangers who might (and no doubt do) detest the native Caucasians of France?

Did they want to pretend that non-whites like white people? Big mistake there. There can be no racial harmony in the world where only white people are concerned with it and willing to look beyond color. Non-whites in general haven't reached the point where they overlook race and likely never will. And why should they since they are the majority world-wide and there is no advantage for them to do so?

We now learn that, out of desperation for his next presidential bid, Nicolas Sarkozy of France is promising to reduce the number of "foreigners" to that ancient country (BBC). (hat tip Drudge)

Perhaps that will help him. But the racists (the socialists) are powerful in France and in hot pursuit of Sarkozy. It may be too late for him and France to fight back.

The socialists depend on destabilizing civilizations in order to seize power. And bringing in foreigners (of any color) is a quick way to do that. Bringing in foreigners of a different color and religion is even better. The racial and cultural hatred will require totalitarianism to keep a lid on the conflict. Socialists like that sort of stuff.

Recall how that Saddam Hussein's heavy hand was needed to subdue the merely cultural disharmony in Iraq. These were the same racial group, the same religion, but different cultures. And they brutalized each other because of it. This is human nature and the socialists know it. That is why the socialists in France and the western world want multiculturalism. They want the chaos it creates in order to justify the totalitarianism.

Alexis De Tocquevilled, in his Democracy in America, noted this same thing about the human race, but quite unlike the socialists. He praised a monoculture for its harmony. And the monoculture he praised what the white protestant culture of the new nation America. He also condemned its slavery, that remnant of the old world. And pointed out that in the north things were more vibrant and productive than in the south where slavery was more intrenched.

The socialists here and abroad know that mixing it up racially, ethically, and culturally means more slavery (totalitarianism). That is their favorite way to stamp out Christianity on a large scale. It allows them to avoid murdering Christians outright.

Did God make the separate ethic groups we see today? According to the Bible he did so at the tower of Babel through confusing their language. Is this a bad thing? No. It's a good thing. Why? Decentralization. Is that good? Yes. Always. Why? Because centralization leads to slavery. To much decentralization can lead to it by causing chaos, but centralization of all the worlds people into one body politic always leads to slavery (totalitarianism). It is the source of slavery. Every imperial world government has led to it. So God disbursed the human race and the natural selection which he created worked its magic to produce the marvelous diversity of human groups.

Is the human race one race? Yes, according to the Bible we are. We are all of one blood, as the Bible teaches. But we are diverse for our own sakes and for the glory of God.

If that diversity is lost by immigration, there will be less human diversity on the large scale we have seen through all of human development. And for the atheist that means there will be less diversity in human evolution, which they claim is millions of years old. And they say that the Christian doesn't admire science! It is they who ignore it when it doesn't fit in their fanciful "social" theories.

Calls for racial diversity are, in essence, calls for less of it. If all birds interbred we would not have cardinals, blue jays, robins, or wrens. The world of birds would be less diverse. And this is what the socialists ask of the human race.

We already know that we can breed lions and tigers. And we know that some interbreeding of others species is leading to hybrids that can produce some type of offspring. If we forced them to live together and they breed because we have forced them into the same territory, then we would have less diversity as pure breds become more scare. Same goes with humans. And I suspect that the atheists who wish for white people to be forced into territorial encroachment by non-white groups (and not the other way around) has the obliteration of the white race as its ultimate goal.

We do not see non-white racial groups eager to eliminate their majority racial status in their own territories. They only want to see the majority status of white territories diluted or eliminated

Not nice.

Socialism (godless communism, etc.) has always been an attack on Caucasians, Christianity, and Western Civilization. And it has always been racist at its core while pretending to be non-racist.

Socialism is a racist program to eliminate the Caucasian race and charge them the fee for it.

These non-white immigrant groups, both in Europe and the United States (as well as Canada and Australia) are biding the time until the Caucasian majorities are extinguished from these countries. Don't think the Sierra Club will step in and ask that white people be put on the endangered species list either.

And don't ever believe that once these non-white groups have majority powers in western civilization lands that they will be as beneficent as the whites were and invite whites to their soon to be non-white nations. They won't.

They are not that stupid. And if they get their way, there won't be any whites to invite in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17280647

Jobs for Genocide: Obama and the El Salvadorans

January 12, 2012 A.D.

Salem (witchcraft) Radio Network reported a news blurb all day yesterday (or was it the day before)? Anyway, the blurb said basically that Barack Hussein (no relation to Saddam) Obama is calling for businesses in America not to send US jobs overseas.

Oh yeah. He cares. Uh huh.

Of course he did nothing in the past three years to prevent those jobs from going overseas while he had a Democratic Party congress for two solid years. We are to believe that suddenly he cares?

No.

He was too busy setting up a communist totalitarian scheme called Obamacare to be concerned about outsourcing US jobs. So now the scheme is to import low IQ barbarians from overseas who are easily bribed to vote for him through promises of communist welfare handouts. And suddenly the president is interested in jobs.

For the foreigners.

You can read about Obama's new voter-slash-genocide scheme here at the Independent Sentinal. What is that website about? Who knows, but you gotta love the photograph. They look like Obama types, don't they? The big media outlets don't seem to be reporting the story enough to get Google's attention perhaps. Anyway, reporting on Obama's genocide of WASP America might be just a tad bit boring for them. The Greeley Gazette has the story too. You've all heard of the Greeley Gazette, right? Here is their posting of the story.

We need foreigners here like we need holes in our heads. And that is just what Obama and his invaders would like to give us.

When we have high unemployment the last thing we need is one more immigrant. And we certainly don't need one more disloyal Hispanic American since every single Hispanic is disloyal. Each and every one of them. And especially those who serve in the military.

Obama is counting on that too, because he is as disloyal to America as every single Hispanic "American" is.

But Obama has a genocide of WASPish Americans to conduct and accomplish. And it dovetails neatly with his failed presidency that he would like to continue. He cannot destroy America utterly, his "fundamental [criminal and subversive] transformation", unless he replaces the remaining population of citizens who love America with those who don't (i.e. Hispanics). So he needs these foreign barbarians who are too stupid to know what is going on and too evil to care to come here and have OUR jobs.

The rest of us he wishes to go to hell. Apparently.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/01/obama-gives-backdoor-amnesty-to-illegal-salvadorians-millions-in-aid-to-el-salvador/

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12885

Rich White Americans Should Invest In White Babies Not Land

October 13, 2011 A.D.

The Wall Street Journal has this article about the biggest land owner in America. (Hat-tip Drudge).

Outside of the issue as to whether it might be immoral (or should be illegal) for any one private individual to own so much land in the United States, the issue of what the rich do with their money at this time in American history could not be more important with regard to the genocide of white people in America by the US government through the immigration of stupid and disloyal hordes of foreigners for the purposes of destroying US sovereignty and subjugating the republic to a global government.

Land can be a great value during very tumultuous and uncertain times. But of even greater value in such times as these is preserving the race of the people that nurtured these great land owners: the white race. You know who they are. That is the race of the people in the paintings and portraits of our ancestors and Founding Fathers. We are their besieged posterity.

I suggest rich men like John Malone and Ted Turner start a project to build up the Caucasian race in America back to its previous status. They could do this by selecting out white families who already have children, are doing a fairly decent job of it, and would have many more children if they could afford it. This would be a foundation specifically designed to help white people increase their numbers. It would have a name similar to the United Negro College Fund, but would be called the Caucasian Family Fund, or whatever.

Now, if you think, dear reader, that I am a racist for saying something like this, I would ask you why you are being a racist for advocating that white people be made, against their will, a minority race in the land of their ancestors through the genocidal policies of their own government?

And I would ask you why you are a racist against white people (even if you were a white person). Because if there is any racism having to do with the topics discussed at the blog, it would be the racism of those that presumes white people ought not to be allowed to gather together in one place as they hitherto have done in this country since 1787 when the United States became a republic.

And I would ask you why you are not bothered that blacks are mainly gathered together in one place on the continent of Africa. Or that Asians are mainly gathered together in one place near China and surrounding territories.

If the voluntary gathering together of racial groups bothers you so much, why don't you move to foreign lands where such gatherings are more racially pure and mix it up a little with them. And tell them what bad people they are for having mono-racial cultures. Tell them they are racists for doing it. Tell it real loud.

I'd like to see that. If they murder you for the utterly stupid and asinine things you say I might send flowers to your funeral (if they gave you one).

Just leave my country alone. It's not a racial experiment for depraved and demented self-loathing white people like you who stupidly feel guilty about the slavery or discrimination you had nothing to do with.

Morons and racists like you don't deserve the blessings of liberty our white ancestors hoped and prayed their posterity would receive.

If you need to be absolved of something you did not do and cannot shake off the racist conclusions of your corrupt and twisted moral reasoning, professor Walter E Williams (whose grandparents were slaves in America) has granted you a full pardon for something you did not do but stupidly feel guilty for:

Here is your pardon, click on this line and receive it.


http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/10/12/john-malone-now-biggest-landowner-in-the-u-s/

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/gift.html

Racist Minorities Band Together: The Genocide of White Americans On the Agenda

June 14, 2011

Are Jews now openly rising up against whites (and protestants) in "minority" political schemes after a half century of demonizing white Americans as racists through organizations like the Anti-Defamation League?

Read about a new ad by a Jewish politician at Alternative Right online.

See what a big joke all this is to the racists in the You Tube video (link) below promoting a Jewish politician. I wonder if whites soon become a minority (with the help of Jews) will the Jews join up with them and devise racist schemes against brown people?

Who are these evil and non-white ungrateful people who now "hate" the people who have blessed them with a homeland by invitation?

Jews in America rose to the highest levels known to mankind and became great scientists, artists, scholars, and musicians in the bosom of white protestantism. They have reaped the blessings of Christianity and not of Buddhism or even Catholicism. The land of white Anglo-Saxon protestants opened its home to them, and what is the thanks for it? A slap in the face and conspiracy to commit genocide against the people who invited them in: white protestants.

Ban all Middle East immigration. Muslim, Arab, Persian, and Jew.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/district-of-corruption/minorities-united/

What Do Rape, Murder, Robbery, and Invasions Have in Common?

June 2, 2011 A.D.

They are the opposite actions of consensual sex, killing, taxation, and immigration.

And I would like to use a recent article by Scott Lazarowitz at Lew Rockwell online to make that argument. Bazaarowitz thinks it is just fine and dandy to let the invaders invade. And he thinks to do otherwise (kick them out or have a legal system of entry) is socialist.

I'd like to make mince-meat of those ideas.

One of the biggest moral flaws in American Libertarian philosophy is the inability to make fine moral distinctions in a consistent manner. This is especially true with the subject of "illegal immigrants". That oxymoron is akin to calling rapists "illegal lovers". But Libertarians simply have drawn the wrong conclusions about the illegal aliens. And I will use three similar moral paradoxes to show how wrong Libertarians are about immigration and the barbarous invaders they would like us to embrace who come mostly from south of our border.

The first paradox is murder and killing. Murder is the taking of innocent life. It is premeditated. That means it is an intentional and unjust act to rob someone of their life. The other variety of this kind of action is killing. Killing is also the act of taking a life. It is the kind of thing that may happen if a man is defending his child from someone who is trying to murder the child. If in the process of defending the child the attacker is killed by the rescuer, no one in their right mind, not even the morally inept Libertarian, considers the killing of the attacker murder.

But both murder and killing which is not murder end with the loss of human life. And it is the reason or purpose behind their deaths that allows us to make a moral distinction between the two acts. Those reasons and purposes are essential to understanding the results.

The second paradox is rape and consensual sex. Rape involves forced sexual conduct against an individual. Consensual sex does not. Both acts involve sexual actions and use more or less the same sexual organs of the human body. One is a brutal attack and the other a loving and desirable activity between consenting adults. In the example of rape, only one person is expressing some level of sexual conduct using sexual organs. But the sexual nature of the attack is still present or else it would be "merely" assault. And we acknowledge the sexual nature of it by using the word rape.

The third paradox is theft and taxation. Theft is the taking of money or property that does not belong to you. This should stop the pro"immigrant" invasion Libertarians right in their tracks but it does not. Because surely American territory does not belong to the Mexican or Peruvian citizens. Or for that matter citizens from anywhere else in the world. And what land is not owned by the people themselves is held in common for them protected by the government. So I do not believe Libertarians who think otherwise are really Libertarians. Instead I believe they are Marxists posing as Libertarians. In other words they are criminally-minded people prone to advocating stealing and worse.

A government can steal and rob just as easily, if not better, than common thieves. Taxation for Social Security, for example is theft. And it is theft because the government has no legal authority to take money via taxation for that purpose according to the Constitution. Even if it did have that authority, I would still considered it morally repugnant. Let me state clearly that I am not for pulling the rug out from under the feet of older folks who paid into the S.S.system and made plans to collect it or are in need to getting back that money they paid out over many decades. I'm for abolishing the system but not all at once, nor unfairly. And vulnerable people ought to be protected from that.

On the other hand, taxation for that which the people have agreed to for the safety and security of their lives and property is not theft. This is especially important to women and children.

I get the impression that Libertarians may think the world should only belong to those who can protect themselves (and keep government out of it). But there happen to be tens of millions of people who are not big, nor strong, and if there wasn't some sort of power to protect them life would be exceedingly unjust. Thus, a stand-in for a strong man becomes requisite to protect the innocent. Thus this stand-in strong-man is a legitimate function of conglomerated power.

What would the Libertarians have orphans do, go to work a six and hire a body guard? I suppose so.

Thus if a stand-in strong-man can be a legitimate cause for the state (the conglomeration) for some, then it could be legitimate cause for all. Even an old, poor, and feeble Libertarian who lost all resources to protect himself might need that some day. Or his widowed wife. Defining this might be very tricky or difficult, especially if you are a Libertarian, but it can be done. Like many other things in life it is fraught with dangers. No news there.

If there is no government whatsoever then there is no civilization to speak of and human kind is reduced to tribes who continually prey on each other such that they are unable to advance to the point of the New York Philharmonic, discovering fractals, or inventing the computer. Life is spent hunting and being hunted by other humans and we are reduced to the cave man "life-style". This appears to be the goal of American Libertarians. What a bunch of chimpanzees. Oh wait. Chimps defend their own territory. I retract that and offer my apologies to chimps.

We know this tribalism happens when groups are too small to defend themselves long enough to establish fine art, advanced industry, technology, science, and music. These things and more Libertarians pretend to admire. And we also know from history that without some minimal form of government humans descend into a primitive state where advancement becomes next to impossible. Africa is a good example of this.

And if you do not know by now that there is something woefully wrong with the whole human race since the time we have been recording its history then you (Libertarians) are really too stupid to be giving out advice about how to conduct a civilization--especially one created by a barbarian invasion of persons who are not overly interested in intellectual pursuits. Even ones not interested in reading about economic theories or philosophies like libertarianism.

So the wisest course for intelligent humankind (I suppose that exempts American Libertarians) to take is for several tribes or so to agree to the most affectionate and useful conglomeration (government) they can create which will help protect them from the most odious tribes or groups of tribes who would harm them (like Libertarians and their not so bright barbarian friends with the high crime rate?).

I sense that our Founding generation hoped to have such created a good government. And I believe they did.Unfortunately our contemporary leaders are trying to destroy it. Especially the Democratic Party which openly wishes to subvert it through "fundamental" change.

What so, in my mind and I think the mind of all rational and moral people, I believe that Lazarowitz is actually suggesting is that we ought to enjoy it if a motor cycle gang burglarizing our home, laid claim to the property and possession while it forces us to pay the mortgage and keep the place up. They can eat out our existence, take liberties with the wife, attack the children, and steal their inheritance and political rights to self-determination. And why should we let them do all this? According to Lazarowitz we should let them do this because they are people too. Isn't that special? I'll bet you didn't realize they were people too you greedy dumb*ss racist pigs.

Libertarians say they value (almost above all) the concept of property. Yet there is no valuing property with invaders or burglars. Invading ones property (home, country) is theft and robbery. Invading your neighbors land is immoral except if you are a communist fink like Lazaroditz. The Libertarians should rename their new found quest for territorial theft "illegal ownership".

In summary.

Murder and killing end in death. One is evil, the other essential.
Rape and consensual sex involve sexual actions. One is evil, the other desired.
Theft and taxation is surrendering ones property. One is evil, the other essential.
Invasion and immigration is the entry of outsiders. One is burglary the other an invitation.

This is not rocket science, which wouldn't have developed if we left it up to the Libertarians, but the Libertarians are having a hard time figuring it out.

Libertarians just don't seem intellectually capable of understanding these moral distinctions. It is an obvious and curious moral failing. Well, at least it is obvious to me. And yet it is a major intellectual error which I am always surprised they make. And I don't believe the father of Libertarianism, Friedrich Hayek, would make it. Maybe Lazarowitz isn't a Libertarian, but Rockwell most certainly is and it seems very poor judgment for him to post Larzarowitz's nonsense on Lew Rockwell online.

Even Hayek recognized the value of custom and tradition, and felt that those who wished to eliminate them in wholesale fashion were not only unwise but dangerous. He also thought they were conceited. He said a person or group of people who held such grand schemes to force on others committed the error of THE fatal conceit. Hayek applied this idea to socialism. But any intentional large scale disruption of a whole civilization which destroys customs and traditions can result in the same cataclysmic turmoil.

These Libertarian supporters of the invading hordes pose the same threat as the socialists. That threat is the unknown consequences of major cultural upheavals forced on others. And yet the author of the Rockwell article actually thinks that it is lawful immigration that is akin to socialism. When in truth it is the invasion which Lazarowits wishes us to embrace that most resembles socialism and what it produces: unimaginable and devastating consequences.

It is very odd that Lazarowitz would consider an act as serious as reshaping an entire civilization by replacing a major portion of the citizenry with a different foreign culture and race to be any less an unpredictable upheaval than socialism. I think it is more than odd. It is stupid. And it shapes up to be another monumental fatal conceit.

Lazarowitz writes:

And that brings me to the American Declaration of Independence. In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Each individual has an inalienable, inherent right of ownership of one’s own life, person, labor and justly-owned property, and pursuit of happiness, and the right to be free from the aggression against one’s life by others, including agents of the State...

...Here is where we lose the conservatives. The Declaration of Independence does not state that such rights apply to "only Americans."... Unfortunately, some people do not believe that non-"American citizens" possess such rights.

Ah. What a trickster this nincompoop Bazaarowitz is. And how convenient that this communist interloper writing at Lew Rockwell ignores the context of Mr. Jeffersons comments.

Jefferson is careful to define the context of his statements. He writes:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The key term in that very long sentence is "one people". Check it out. It comes in as the 12th and 13th words of the sentence. "One people" clearly means a specific group of people as set apart from all others. By this Lazarowitz implies that Jefferson either doesn't believe other people really do have unalieanable rights to secure and Jefferson is really lying, and that Jefferson didn't believe there were outsiders among mankind from which any "one people" might separate themselves.

I suggest Lazarowitz is pretending that Jefferson did not distinguish between the in group (Jefferson's group) and the out group (the British). By Bazaarowitz's inept reasoning, we should believe that the British citizens including government officials (since they are people too) should have been let in to invade the new founded "separated" people in America and run things as they saw fit.

Totally BAZAARO!

Okay, that is twisted. But it isn't MY reasoning. It's Bazaarowits'.

Jefferson further writes:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Okay, another mouthful for those who went to public school. But let me point out a few things from that passage which make a nitwit out of Lazarowitz . Jefferson is saying that a government has the right (by the consent of the people) to define itself. Well, if that people are being invaded by outsiders where is the right to group self-determination by "one people" who have separated themselves from the others?

It is nowhere to be found.

In other words unless a people cannot be separated from others in order determine what form of association they shall have themselves, they will be stripped of a power to group self-determination. And who is Lazarowitz to say such a group of individuals should have no such power? And who the hell is Lazarowitz to claim they ought not to?

And believe you me, the invading hordes Lazarowitz wishes for us to embrace are not SO stupid as to deny themselves some sort of power to determine who and what America shall be. And if the imbecile Lazarowitz won't claim some sort of self-determination regarding this great land, the invading hordes will gladly step in and show him how to do it.

Lazarowitz wants Americans to abdicate their unalieanble right to national self-determination to a group of outsiders who have no hesitation to force their self-determination on the citizens.

Lazarowitz is morally depraved. He says it is evil for one people to determine for themselves who they shall be but OKAY for another people to tell the others to FORCE on those people who they must become.

It is twisted and if not intentionally diabolical, then it is demented.

It is perverted justice. And it is communistic because everything we have inherited and built up as a "one people" is to be handed over to those whose ancestors did not toil for them. This is exactly like working all your life to help your children and when you have achieved your financial goals and adequate property it is demanded of you to bequeath it all to strangers' children.

This is communism when done on as large a scale as the insidious Mr. Lazarowitz would have us accept.

If the criminally-minded Mr. Lazarowitz is so worried about the Mexicans, he can send them all his money. Better yet, he go live with the barbarous hordes and try to tell them THEY have no right to self-determination.

Lazarowitz has advocated communism while pretending to be offended by socialism. What a jerk.

http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz25.1.html

http://www.discoverchimpanzees.org/become/male_patrol.php

Sweden's Genocide

April 22, 2011 A.D.

Patrick Buchanan wrote a book, nearly ten years ago, called The Death of the West. In it he chronicles the method: the immigration of third-world barbarians, the moral depravity of the native-born westerners, and the indifference and complicity of their leaders to allow the invasion of backwards civilizations.

It is a perfect storm of self-inflicted genocide by a people who hate themselves because they became a great civilization.

Below is a You Tube video about the suicidal genocide in Sweden. I don't know how much of it is true, but it rings true. France is having the same problem. The part about having an honest debate about immigration is crucial. Such a debate is not allowed by western governments, including the USA.

Americans are not allowed to discuss being made into a third-world dump. We are just to submit to our rulers and accept the genocide.

Those who want a robust debate are called racists and bigots; and the discussion ends. Self-determination is a vaunted value of the leftist global community (Wikipedia). But is strictly denied to western peoples. To be specific, white people.

They have no such right and their leaders make sure they don't. So follow the money. And follow the addiction to power. Western leaders become rich by selling off their nations to multiculturalism and the goal of one world government.




http://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/0312302592/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303467234&sr=8-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

Do Gooder White Liberals Spend Their Wealth On Non-Citizens While Americans Suffer

March 25, 2011 A.D.

Rich white liberals spend a lot of money overseas on fruitless philanthropic projects to help others who are often not even willing to help themselves. One cannot help people from the ground up like the singer Madonna is doing in Malawi. The New York Times online has this article about her school in Malawi (or what is left of it before its collapse). The collapse may foreshadow the ultimate futility of her efforts.

Leaders of backwards nations must be willing to lift up their people and they cannot themselves be corrupt or such aid won't work. If this is not the case then rich foreigners end up throwing away their money. In many areas where lily-white liberals tend to go around the world (and we often get the feeling that it is to prove they are not racists) they are dealing in populations with low IQs. Liberals have to understand that IQ plays a serious role in explaining the circumstances of the down trodden and the leaders which come forth from among them. And it plays a role especially where education is concerned.

Herding children into schools isn't the only answer and in the beginning it isn't even the best one. IQ is something which cannot be easily changed and it predicts academic abilities. It takes generations to change. Other things have to be done before lavish funds should be appropriated for schools. Gaudy buildings and equipment in areas of the world with people not ready for anything resembling what the western nations view as adequate schools becomes an insult to these people. It is to embarrass them ultimately because they will not be able to achieve what Madonna hopes for them.

What they need first, and for many generations thereafter, is good nutrition and clean water. Good nutrition helps raise IQ levels. You simply cannot educate a rock and expect a flower to grow. You have to wait for some rich soil to appear first and that takes years of adequate and sustained nutrition. This should be her (or anyone who cares) focus. And since Madonna doesn't run Malawi, her efforts are likely futile.

After generations of good nutrition (good luck) you still won't need expensive schools to educate children in third world conditions. What a waste of money! Just send books. Send paper, pencils, and crayons. Send more books. Then some more. More paper. More books. Paper. Pencils. Then books.

But don't build an expensive school. That is stupid.

There has been centuries of missionary work by Christians in these down-trodden areas of the world long before Madonna noticed other peoples' suffering. And there has been decades of educating the best of young foreign nationals in Western schools who then return to their homelands. Yet little headway has been made in many areas of the world where the intellectual capacity of the citizens is problematic. Had rich liberals helped with this missionary work last century, which always focused on nutrition and clean water, things might have been better at this time for these unfortunate people.

But leftists like Madonna did virtually nothing (often condemning) to help American Christians in the field living side by side with the down-trodden while exposing themselves to many hardships, trials, and suffering. Had the rich liberals and leftists in America not been frothing Christophobic bigots and sat idly by while others reached out to help, things might be more fruitful for the Madonnas of the world.

I'm not saying Madonna is a bigot. She had a Catholic upbringing and now she is dabbling in Jewish mysticism. So she appears to be searching for the truth and I doubt she would attack Christianity.

But these leftist late-comers for the most part ignored the pleas of missionaries from the darkest corners of planet for nearly a century. And now they are just throwing good money at bad ideas. It's a crying shame and they should leave these matters to those already in the field working with the poor and unfortunate people in the undeveloped world.

There is much trouble in America and so many people in need. Yet one wonders why rich leftists like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Peter Lewis, and John Kerry who became rich because of the blessings of liberty provided by this country waste their money overseas or waste it in political shenanigans at home. They don't rebuild crumbling infrastructure projects that need repair. They don't help old people with their health care. They don't start hospitals for the poor. Yes, they spend some of their wealth here, but they often piddle their money away overseas while their countrymen suffer.

Madonna couldn't help provide some old people in America with their health insurance? She couldn't purchase expensive medical equipment for handicapped Americans? She couldn't fund the building of a needed water purification or sanitation system in a poor area of the United States? There was no small bridge in a poor area of our country needing repair or rebuilding? Weren't there enough brown American faces to be photographed with to make her face appear even more white?

No rational person believes there wasn't a real need she could have met here in America--the land of her nativity--the country that gave her glory, honor, and wealth. Even if it flopped and buildings collapsed at least the money would have benefited some American somewhere.

Liberals love to prove they are not racists and that they don't have anything against dark people. Yet, for most all of Madonna's professional life she died her hair to look like a Nordic blond, eschewing her naturally dark feature.

Here is a link to a photo of "Madonna". Keep in mind, as you look at the photo, that she hopes to be remembered as a good mother. This, after she did everything in her power to debauch American youth. Other mothers were desperately trying to be good mothers while she undermined their every efforts to do so by her powerful personal media images that reached practically every innocent child in the country, including youths whose mothers would not let their children be a fan of Madonna.

It was weird, as I searched, how that the internet appears to be scrubbed of much of the filthy images Madonna spewed across the planet. Google Images have, generally, nice photos of Madonna as if she was a nice wholesome girl. There are some raunchy photos still, but not much of it. I reckon she might have spent a fortune putting her filthy images down the memory hole and, or, threatening folks with copyright lawsuits if they publish their personal photos of her.

At the peak of her career photos and videos of Madonna's raunchy and vile strutting on stage like a slut were ubiquitous and sent all over the planet and made every decent mother in America pull her hair out. These were average mothers who did not have have the wealth Madonna has to shield their children from the vile and sleazy brand of moral corruption Madonna peddled, and wallowed in, and exposed other mothers' children to.

She might redeem herself to her fellow countrymen, women,and children, by helping her own people in America--even the ones she helped debauch while stepping on them on her way to the top.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/us/25madonna.html?hp

http://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/music/72298/madonna-wrapping-world-tour-israel

More slutty-like images of Madonna:

http://www.femalebeauty.info/2006/madonna-voted-the-worlds-greatest-sex-symbol.html

http://www.life.com/image/83617034